Re: SGML (short)

Subject: Re: SGML (short)
From: Tim Altom <taltom -at- IQUEST -dot- NET>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 12:20:00 EST

You've struck the lost chord, Chet. Even creating up-front processes for
SGML, regardless of future savings, are usually considered too costly.
Clients listen eagerly to us until the price pops up, then they rapidly lose
interest. We've even offered to do cost analysis to justify going to a
database style, only to be rebuffed.

>Certainly better style standards were called for in this case. But style
>standards must be applied and few companies go back and redo the existing
>manuals because the process is too costly.

Tim Altom
Vice President
Simply Written, Inc.
Technical Documentation and Training
Voice 317.899.5882
Fax 317.899.5987

Previous by Author: Re: Re[3]: Certification (long)
Next by Author: Re: Screen Capture without rasters?
Previous by Thread: Re: SGML (short)
Next by Thread: Re: SGML (short)

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads